Skip to main content

About your Search

20131101
20131130
Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36
. the debt limit is later on. we don't know the timing of that. i don't know if you had jack lew here or not -- >> we did. >> he was able to do more extraordinary measures. that could be into the summer as late or spring but i do not believe we will have -- >> the debt limit -- >> that's going to go on later. these are disjointed events. i do not believe that you'll have the kind of theatrics surrounding that as well. >> why do you think that it will be different this time within your own conference because the speaker didn't want the crisis that happened the last time. i think and correct me if i'm wrong, i don't think you did. >> that's correct. >> but yet you couldn't control your own members. how can you prevent that from happening again? >> obama care is here now. so you know the reason this happened from our perspective was -- now people understand why we fight obama care so much i guess. you have to understand the mindset of a house republican going into this. we were doing all of these oversight hearings, getting all of this testimony, seeing that this program was not ready fo
there are is the risk of that happening. i don't know that we have any evident of it actually happening and how the insurers, once they have a little more experience with reference pricing and see how charnls, if they have their payment tied to charges, we'll have more evidence of whether there is that kind of cost shifting within a facilities procedures. i think it's while it can "happy-go-luck "happy-go-lucky "happy-go-luckhappe limit, it should not on the front end. >> yes, david. >> we get the same question. well, for the hips and knees, kind of looping back around. as you saw in our numbers, we didn't actually see an increase in volume over the time and then in the're three procedures, i think we've seen a little bit of increase in colin os ko pi, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. for a screening like that, it's probably a good thing. >> yes, ma'am. >> my name is lisa summers. i'm with century health care institute. my question is -- given cpr's work on maternity care payment reform. certainly, o b care is not entirely elective once you're pregnant, you have to deliver, but women cer
schedule, does anyone think it was a green project? >> i don't think so it should not have been green. there should be flags on the dash board and better transparency. the other thing is pro active governance. we look at the i.t. reform plans and things in the bill, legislation, proactive governance is very important and it's great and i'm pleased that everyone is involved now. we need that up front on important projects not when things go in the tank. we need it up front. the same when projects go into the tank we get engaged with the contractor more. why don't we engage with the right executives up front. i know there are a lot of projects and priorities, we need to find a way to tackle that better. >> i yield back. thank you. >> thank you gentleman from vermont. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. i too want to join in this sentiment that i appreciate that you are legitimately trying to work on this and we all are and i chair the cyber committee and i reflect many of the people out there that with the concept of frustration, in many ways when i t
-- i don't believe the public would be as angry if the crisis -- if the economy hadn't turned way down and if they weren't suffering. they wouldn't be as angry if banks were propped up, failed banks in their current form. which is what david got in to with the perception of the american public. they don't understand why an institution fails, should be bailed out, propped up in its current form. i think regulators have an important tool. but i frankly, you know, it's interesting, when i go through this every time someone says something, i want to do what barney did, stand up and make a comment or interject because the comment was made, well, we don't have orderly liquidation authority, it looks like we have the basics, but we don't have everything fleshed out in a lot of detail. it ain't ever going to be fleshed out in all the detail you need. the key is going to be how those sitting in the seats choose to use it when the moment comes. if they care about being criticized and care about the public reaction, they will fail. one of the things that i saw during the crisis was a big collisio
did, which is reach out and get 61% of the hispanic vote. perry got -- >> you don't have an immigration bill. >> governors can do it easier than congress mmen and senators but governors need to reach out to the immigration communities in their states, in their cities, in their congressional districts. i believe we will see an immigration bill. i think the danger comes from whether obama really wants a bill. and the reason to wonder about that is he was president for all of 2009 and all of 2010 with congressional people in the senate. he didn't talk about a bill, woke up, went to bed. >> but. >> i'm talking about the -- the bill passed to the senate, not particularly my cup of tea, but it got a conversation going. what you do have is serious border security. not 47,000 troops on the border but border security. and you want to have something there for high tech, for the farming industry, and you want to do something for the people who are here so they don't have to live in the shadows and regularize their ability to be here and continue to work. >> where is grover norquist
want to tantalize you to make sure you look around and see three or four people you don't know and you introduce yourself. and it is a celebration of my inclusion among 15 people i greatly admire who are being presented with the medal of freedom by president obama. there's no president in history from whose hand i would be more honored to receive this medal. and it gives me a chance to say here i'm especially grateful for this lunch because when we get the medal, we can't talk it turns out. i'm grateful to have the opportunity to say here that i would be crazy if i didn't understand that this was a medal for the entire women's movement. [ applause ] it belongs to shirley chism and patsy and in the future it would be great for robin morgan -- i'm lobbying a little bit here. barbara smith. and so many more. and it has already honored rosa parks and rachel carson and dorothy and my dear friend chief of the cherokee nation who i accompanied when she received her medal. now, of course with all of that company i get uppity, i can remember dick cheney received as did henry hyde whose self-nam
if you did like it, period? i don't recall. >> again, that's kind of a health policy matter, really outside my lane -- >> you don't know when you first realized you couldn't keep your health insurance even if you liked it, period? >> would you agree with me that credibility or the lack thereof in one area of life could impact credibility or the lack there of and any other area of life? >> i suppose it could. >> in your written testimony, you wrote as you know, october 1st was the launch date of the new website, healthcare.gov. i did know that. i didn't know why. and i'm going to read to you a quote from secretary sebelius. she said and i'll paraphrase, she was hurried into producing a website by october the 1st because the law required it. i'll read you the direct quote. in an ideal world, there would have been a lot more testing. we did not have the luxury of that with a law that said it's go time on october the 1st of -- mr. park, i don't know what ideal world she's referring to so i'm going to stick with one we're in. what law was she referencing? what law required this website t
's done, because they know what we'll do if they don't do what we warn them about. that's not just the case today. and if it's a terrorist group as well, the capacity to go and identify through intelligence means and then to have precision guided munitions on a training base or government that may have provided support today, we could do that. but more likely be the u.s. that would do it. i don't think they have the will to agree to such a thing. it takes the consensus of nato among the allies and define the operation roles. i don't see that. i think that means as nato, we really don't have that deterrent capability. if i could add one more point, i don't see -- maybe it's just me and i'm a little thick -- i don't see missile defense as having a deterrent capability, other than making sure we are not deterred in our efforts to deal with the regional challenge. so the example walt gave, if iran is doing something in the middle east and they have a missile capacity, the fact that we know we can blunt that missile capacity, would therefore mean we're not deterred from dealing with tha
unemployment -- or employment. >> so i don't have a precise estimate, but every three months all of the participants in the fomc fill out a survey and indicate what they think the normal longer run level of unemployment is. in our most recent survey in september, the range of opinion was 5% to 6%. >> okay. tell me, what do you believe the real unemployment rate is today? >> well, the measured unemployment rate is 7.3% -- >> i know the measured unemployment rate. that wasn't my question. >> as we've discussed previously, we have very high incidents of involuntary, part-time employment. we have all too many people who appear to have dropped out of the labor force. >> i don't want to belabor this committee hearing any longer than what i have to. would you agree that it is at least close to or probably over 10%? >> certainly by broader measures, it is that high. >> would you also agree that right now in america, we have the greatest income disparity that we have had since the great depression, right before the great depression? >> we've had widening wage inequality and income inequal
. >>. >> correct. so to be clear, these modules don't transmit any specific user information. is that correct? >> correct. >> so when cbs evening news ran its evening report based on a leak, presumingly from the majority staff, which we don't know, of a partial transcript, they said the security issues raised in the document could lead to identify theft among buying insurance, that cannot be true based ond what we just established in our back and forth. is that correct? >> that's correct. i think there was some rearra e rearrangement in how it was portrayed. so just to summarize, it will not relate to parts that were active. they did not relate to any part of the system that handles personal consumer information. and there was, in fact, no possibility of identity theft despite the leak. >> correct. >> thank you, mr. chao, i yield back. >> woul the jebtle man yield? have you read the november 6th letter from the ranking member to me? >> yes, in facts, i think i co-sined that letter. >> oh, that's good. even today there are significant security leaks that the ranking member was concerned if di
're really watching that closely. we don't want people to stop taking medications when they need it, but we just want them to be better educated about the quality of the services they're receiving. just a brief moment. what we did is look at knee replacements, mus skeletal has been one of the highest in the plan, so we look at cost and quality of care that people were receiving and could we take a network and tier it so that we could pay just a little bit home run and inclumore and include t expenses if somebody was willing to go to a provider. we have four tiers within the network. and we leveraged the blue cross and blue shield centers of excellence and tiered it even further. we started with quality and added a cost component, so this is some of the results from 2012 and 2013 when we implemented that. about 264 joint replacements or back fusion surgeries in the last 18 months or so. in the middle blue bar, you can see the impact to the cost of someone who chose to go to the highest quality, most cost efficient providers around the country. we saw about a 20 to 30% reduction in costs. whe
here, i just don't get it, that six in a day doesn't seem like 60,000 simultaneous users. i thank the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank each one of you for coming to testify. and mr. park, you are not old enough probably to remember this, but i remembered the $6 million man. you are now the $600 million man because you're coming in to fix all this. so we're hopeful that you, based on the people that i represent, that you're successful by november 30th. we do want to ask you, though, how do we define success? because the talking points are all that it's going to be fixed for the vast majority of americans, as they go on, and we see mr. langford here. he can't get on. so what is success? is it a 98% without wait time? how do we define success, so on december 1st, we'll know whether you were worth $600 million or not? >> thank you for your comments and your question. first of all, i'm just a small part of the team working to fix this. >> what's success? >> so success is -- first of all, the site will most definitely not be perfect. even sites that are mature -- >> i kn
ignore the misuse, and misuse jeopardizes the virtual ability of the currencies in the longer run. i don't think there is disagreement at all on those points. as it relates to areas -- i just don't think there is use for the laws at the exchange level. know your customer, those kinds of provisions. the greatest challenge, the greatest area we have to grapple with is how do we enforce the enforcement techniques. and the fact that this is a global phenomenon. this is something that was just issued in march of this year. the guidance that directors just talk about, the financial action task force, their guidance on this issue was just issued this summer, i think in july. my sense is that most of the world is not applying money laundering principles. getting from here to there is really the issue that the four of us would have to grapple with. >> thank you. how do you go about reconciling the consensus? >> i'll take the second part first. i don't know that i heard a lot of disagreement or anything we would generally disagree with from this panel or even really from the first panel. i was hea
.6% of that. why don't we focus on the larger issue and fix it? because as i said earlier, it's much better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. >> the gentlemen would yield, maybe we could close on a positive note. both mr. palner who has talked about stress testing end to end and mr. van rokel who knows that microsoft never put a new operating system up that wasn't stress end to end. it still had bugs and vulnerabilities and when ever you create a new driver, you create a new one that has to be tested, but stress testing end to end was something this committee wanted to know at the onset. why it hadn't been done because it is a best practice, which geo has kindly made clear. and i believe it's in the record. we are trying to get to the point where best practices will always be used and in this case, not because of these individuals per se, they're here as experts, but this development over three and a half million years shortcuted some best practices ab it's not the first time and it won't be the last time, but it's won where as i said in the opening statement. it's so important
as a negotiated settlement, the reconciliation process. we still don't know where that will go. but to say that the women are concerned is an understatement. they fear they may be a bargaining chip in that unnegotiated process with the taliban. so what do we say particular ply in the backdrop of a united states that's war weary, where we're focused on our many challenges at home, what can we do to ensure this progress is not reversed. and as secretary kerry said, this strategic necessity the women represent to a better prosperous, peaceful, stable afghanistan is realized. and both of you, i know, have a great deal to say on this subject. >> well, even as our troops drawdown, start to drawdown, there's still many, many groups on the ground in afghanistan. it gives us a chance now, all americans, really, the chance to support those groups, to find the groups. the doctor is here, opus prize winner to promote her schools and women all over afghanistan. leslie schweitzer, fundraiser for university of afghanistan. i think maybe we may get some questions out of afghanistan from american universit
. but in generation is also very libertarian. and i don't think we need two liberal parties. but if republicans would just figure out -- >> ted cruz says we have two already. >> turn the volume down. just pull it back a little bit. the pro-life community isn't going to start voting democratic if helps just sort of push it down the priority list and talk about it a lot less. if they would do that, i think they would do a whole lot better, but they can't seem to get themselves to do that. every state? no, probably not every state. but i've been stunned as how same-sex marriage has caught up. i never would have dreamed it would have caught on and moved as fast. >> think about 2004. >> yeah. never thought. so the thing is -- and i think this country is changing faster than we've ever seen it before. and so these things will be in most states. >> what do you think, chuck, ten years from now? >> i think it's legal nationally. supreme court basically almost opened the door with prop 8. i think the next time gay marriage gets to the supreme court, they will essentially -- it will get to this whole recognitio
particularly so banks and investors don't get cold feet. we have no way of knowing today what second-stage innovations that may have completely different roles in our economy. these new technologies may offer us. and we want to be certain you don't do anything to take them offline. i would assume companies would adopt and publicize their own transparent behaviors. guarantees for redemption are all important user forms of protections. businesses who use have many of the same needs as consumers. and we tend to be focused on regulating for consumers. i spent lots of my life looking at consumer issues. but i'm equally interested in businesses being prkted. i think we need to leave room for the regulatory space. we don't want a regulatory climate, rather, in which early entrants can freeze out later ones. we'd like to have a lot of innovation in this space. i worked at the federal trade commission many years ago and one of the projects i worked on was the rules that had essentially been written by industries for themselves. we'd like not to see that again because they can be very anticomp
don't matter. routine white collar crime, food stamp fraud, who needs to investigate that? who needs that? many of the things that became too minuscule to get the attention of federal law enforcement proved later to be critical to the fundraising activity of terrorist organizations or the fundamental fundraising for international organized crime groups. so that would be my word of advice to policymakers in the hope that they would listen is really take a look. when you sacrifice one program for the sake of another, really take a look at how important that program -- why was that program created and what benefit comes from it? >> thank you. >> there's strong practical advantages to integrating with the law enforcement agents themselves. sometimes i think they operate in separate spheres, and for good reason at times. but if you want to get practical and be able to take law enforcement steps and make sure that you're focused on the right people, the integration of those two efforts can be extraordinary powerful. at the police department and over the years particularly accept september
are outside this country. we have to learn to deal with that. >> governor? >> i mean directly, i don't have the number on the pacific, but with the ttip agreement, we think it it will go up about $2 billion, which is a lot. i think the other thing is you have to look at context in what's happening in the broader market. there are some things working in our advantage. energy costs in the u.s. are going down. that's not true in a lot of other countries around the world. we can take advantage of that. the logistics costs of transferring goods are being a bigger piece of something relative to labor piece of that good. we can take advantage of that as well. i think the market in so many ways is turning to our advantage right now. and in my mind, it would be a shame if we didn't create those additional jobs because of not having these agreements done. >> we should always keep in mind tpp or ttip free trade supports growth. it supports new jobs, foreign investment, innovation, so in the end, the consumer benefits from all of that and creates jobs and in a world of free trade, there will be product
level to deter conflict and increase other options so that our state craft options don't run out prematurely or are less than effective against a wide range of threats. we have to increase the tools on the spacecraft to prevent these things. >> ellen? >> i would say probably, the ability of everybody i know, nevertheless, make sure that's a member of nato, that you really commit to your defense goals. the second thing, i would say, is really look at those things which could enable nato at large to take greater advantage, i think, of its various abilities and to focus of the new strategic and maybe that's an area he hasn't totally taken advantage of, like cyber. make sure the nato members are protected. so all these things that need nato to be able to practice. and the next ting that right now are only in the province of one country to provide. i would say the u.s. much of these stablts. other.com, how do we spread this around so nato isn't totally reliable on one country, for example. >> i would say for them to take a fresh look at the threat in a way that's not static. i've spen
strategic forces. i tell you it's going to turn around. don't think about it in the nuclear sense. you have to think strategic first and coming from great distance or no distance to solve a problem. and last, you're going to think about your conventional forces and moving and the huge cost of standing armies and moving them to the problem. it's just the reality we'll have to deal with it. how are we going to do that and afford it? those are the questions we're going to have to as an alliance come to grips with and understand how we're going to do that. otherwise we won't be matching our resources and our capabilities with the security that we desire to have. >> thank you. >> other than that in agood place. >> curt dealt firsthand with this type of issue, which is dealing with nato contingency planning and involved, if not leading the effort to bring a dose of reality and make it actually occur when it concerns particularly central europe. when you hear those speakers particularly general cartright's point about being able to exercise and leverage increasing speed and deployability of forces
takeover, without the government forcing you to buy the insurance they want you to buy? yeah. i don't know that we'll get that with this president, but the republican party will clearly offer a better system that actually gets at the problem, the cost of health care. the health care inflation and access to affordable care, regardless of your health condition. we've offered those before, offering some right now, and we will offer some more in the near future. >> congressman ryan, thanks very much for joining us. >> thanks so much. thanks, paul. >>> live here on capitol hill, where the senate small business committee is holding a hearing this morning on the health care exchanges for small businesses in states that opted to set up their own marketplaces. the centers for medicaid and medicare will soon announce when small businesses can start enrolling online. for coverage through the small business health options program, also kno as s.h.o.p. coverage through the s.h.o.p. exchange is open to employers with fewer than 50 employees but is currently available only through paper applications. dem
to grow i don't want to get ahead of the budget, the president lucien of the debt limit in october they've been meeting, senator murray and congressman ryan have been meeting. there is any number of possibilities that they could come out with. and any number of sizes, it could be small, medium or large. i think that anything they do that shows that they can work together to kind of chip away would be -- instill some confidence both in the process and the substance. i don't want to jump ahead of where they are. the challenge, i'm doing something really big, both sides have to do something really hard. we've made clear that in order to do the kinds of entitlement reforms that are in the president's budget, it would require moving tax reform and raising some additional revenue. if that's not a possibility for the republicans, then something large is not likely. but there's other ways to -- for these countries to work things out. i would leave it to them. >> can you see all of treasury secretary's jack lew's remarks at c-span.org. we're live again waiting to hear from ben bernanke. speaking
my editorial comment to close, and i don't expect you to respond to it, but we have this debate going on in this country how engaged the u.s. needs to be around the world diplomatically in aid programs, and of course militarily with our presence. this is an example what would happen if the u.s. did retreat from the global stage. there is no substitute from the united states as the people of the philippines would probably agree seeing the response we are giving. as far as the chinese are concerned, all this talk about containing china, that is not our goal. we would love to see the peaceful rise of china. we would like to see them assume what leadership nations do around the globe. this is an example of chinese foreign policy. it's a one-way street. if you can go into these countries and do everything they want you to do, they respond with cash systems. they have territorial disputes with the philippines which the philippines are right on and the chinese are wrong on. you see the result when you have a humanitarian crisis, the chinese are less than willing to respond. compare that to t
next to them saying, i don't regulate them, buyer beware. and we're really at that point, because the more we legitimize this in regulation, the more we commercial it. how do we strike that balance, because to me, if we get involved in regulation, we legitimize it as a true opportunity. >> i think there's a lot to what you say, senator, that if we regulate, we do legitimize. some of today's witnesses have talked about trust and trust is a very important factor particularly with financial products and services. so there is that risk. there is a bone in my body that says, i think that's a risk worth taking. and i think it's particularly worth taking as we think of these virtual currencies as having functions that are a lot like credit cards or debit cards in this respects. >> wouldn't you agree that right now, without any form of intervention, without legitimizing it, every buyer out there has to be careful and that has restricted or limited or tapped down the willingness of people to participate? and you really are, it's kind of ironic because we want all the free enterprise system
point, we've been talking a lot about the size of your portfolio, but essentially, and i don't want to oversimplify, the benchmarks that typically you're looking at is inflation and deflation and unemployment. i think for a while under chairman bernanke, there was in '09 and '10 deflation, which would have been had adverse consequences. we've avoided that. we avoided inflation with pressures, and what we have not yet done is got the employment numbers at a suitable level. so i think the focus should be on those measures rather than the absolute size of your portfolio. is that sensible? >> i think that is sensible, senator. we are very focused on achieving our dual mandate, which is we absolutely want to avoid deflation. we have a 2% price stability objective. we're trying to get the economy back to full employment. i do think we've made progress, but we're not there yet. on the other hand, you know, we recognize from the outset of the asset purchase program there are costs and risks associated with a large balance sheet. >> thank you. >> senator johanns. >> chairman, thank you. it's
thought i have on that, in other areas, we agreed you don't drive cars when they rear end they explode, that is unacceptable. having planes that tumble from the sky is likewise unacceptable. having computer hardware that is immediately subject to or vulnerable to intrusion is unacceptable. actually, it's not. we actually have accepted that as a model. we accept that there are updates that are provided to our computers because they, in fact, are perhaps inherently subject to vulnerabilities. i only make that point to say we live in an environment where we are mitigating all these problems. as much as i would love to live in a world where we could simply eliminate them or get to a place where we eliminate them, realistically we are going to be dealing with strategies to mitigate these problems. >> i want to, before we open it up to questions, get a little more specific on what the private sector should be able to do, and maybe steve you or anyone else jump in on this. there's been a lot of discussion of active defense, of actions that the private sector could do in its own infrastructure
and the quality and that -- and the correlation between the two will be really very important because you don't want consumers to get into a got you situation where they didn't know that someone was above the reference price and now they have a pretty extreme financial out of pocket liability. the last one is adequate networks, it might not be an appropriate term here, because usually these are providers within an established network. so i use the term network loosely, but you want to be able to make sure you have plenty of providers who can offer these services, these procedures at the reference price. so consumers have the ability to choose and they don't feel overly limited. they have plenty of options, including the option to go to seek the care from providers over the reference price, but that's their choice. i won't go through the detail of all of this, but this is just a schematic of the range of reference pricing. you can have very basic reference pricing all the way to really more mature and sophisticated. and cpr also likes to talk about value pricing. reference pricing really refer
. >> i don't have those specifics, but these volumes, if you go to irs on e-filing with people filing taxes in the 11th hour, this is the same problem that irs deals with on an annual basis. what you need to do is plan for your performance. >>> mr. chao, i'll come back to you. you testified under oath on pages 151 and 152, on the minority's questions, basically, and i'll paraphrase because of time, this site did not work. now, we've seen a document with cms on it dated in the last day september 25th that said it passed that test. is it that you did not know saying that it failed? first off, chairman, working with your staff for eight, nine hours, as well as the minority staff going through this transcribed interview, i've not had a chance to look at this. this is the first time i'd seen the results of that day. >> look, your job is to know what's in the site. the cms report testified that it was anonymous. you testified it wasn't. are you prepared to say that under oath, that the anonymous shopper was turned off by your knowledge, not your guess, not your hypothetical. but are you pre
for the opportunity. and, again, i don't take any of this personally. it's a fast-moving sitweight with a lot going on. what i would just say is this. it was the case, absolutely. that that volume is a key issue. it's still an issue the way we've greatly expanded, expanding our ability for the site to accommodate volume. my best understanding at the time, it's the nature of things that you do more painstaking diagnosis of a system, you need to learn more about what you need to do to fix it. it's getting better and better each week with the work of an enormous team and which i'm proud to be a shawl part. if i ever ask a question, i will tell you what i foe to the best of my ability and my best understanding. and that's what i continue to do, as my understanding gets better and better. >> did you engage in a pattern of interference and false statements? >> no, i didn't. really, my best understanding at the time, and i'll continue to do that, as my understanding gets better, i will relay that, absolutely. >> before you were subpoenaed to come here today, was this your office or what you did to continue p
that are out there, i don't know that i can answer that. it's as strong as exists that's out there. to tell you the truth, i don't know what type of cryptology that's used. in terms of the scheme that you mentioned, whether it's a pyramid scheme or hacking, probl probably, the most relevant is the ir revoking of byte coins. when i take a byte coin and pay you with that byte coin, there's no way for me to get that money or that byte coin back unless you choose to give it to me and choose to tell me who you are. so that can be a great tool for hackers who are able to get your code that is your half. i think of the public key almost like the routing number. and i don't give it to others who want to send me money. what i'm not going to give you is the pin that i use to access the atm in my account. and the private key is like that pin. and so, typically, the person holds on to the pin. and it's only when you put the public and private key together that you now have some bit coin that you can actually do something with. so if a hacker gets your private key, they're able to take your byte coin and yo
just don't think is a way to do it, and i think it's complex. there's a lack of clarity. i said i thought we needed better regulation, not more of regulation. we got some of both, okay? and -- but part of the problem you have is what i think chris dodd and barney frank have said, it takes a while. let me tell you, our system is such that when there's a problem, we shine a light on it, the pendulum swings too far, but we work with the rules. and those rules are going to take time for regulators to implement those rules, adapt them. we've got a poisonous political environment, right? normally you go up for technical corrections bills, you can't do that today. so it's going to take awhile to do it, but i think we'll get our arms around it and it will work, but we can't rely on regulation alone and that's why you need moral hazard and no institution can be too big to fail. that's why it's just essential that we end too big to fail. i think we've gone a long way to doing that. i think the biggest way to do it is making sure the biggest, most systemically important institutions have sig
driver. if you get in the car with a driver, you're getting in the car with an artist. you don't know why. if you get 4.9, only a small percentage get that. 4.8 is competent, 4.7, solid, 4.5 gets a little hairy, may not know the city. we can use it to determine who is providing bad service, good service. those providing poor service we can't partner with. those accounts typically get deactivated. >> as an uber customer, wonder how you balance supply and demand. how are you tuning these algorithms. >> at our country we have a math department. i'm a computer engineer, scientist, background at ucla before i dropped out. i thought that would be funny. i still sort of directly manage or get involved with that team. basically seems naturally you push a button and a car comes in five minutes. how do you know that will happen. you have to predict ahead of time. the right number of cars at the same time. predicting traffic. how long does it take for a car to get there can affect how all the trips happen -- >> going to leave this. you can watch the rest online at c-span.org. live to capitol hill fo
don't hold this committee hearing today to sell i.t. reform. this committee has already done its job to sell i.t. reform. however, it is essential that you understand that when mr. cummings and i make public billions of dollars worth of failed i.t. programs, the american people often get a small snippet in the newspaper. today the american people should know this isn't the $600 million unique event, if it were, it would be a different hearing. this is part of a pattern that occurs due to failure to adhere to the private sector's world-class standards for web production. this is a pattern that includes schedule c political appointees being more involved than career professionals. this is a pattern that has to stop. our witnesses today -- among our witnesses today will be mr. dave power, a government accountability officer and an expert in, in fact, what those practices should have been and what failed on healthcare.gov. i might note for all, he is, in fact, a career professional, a nonpartisan, and an individual who doesn't work for me, doesn't work for the ranking member but works fo
's declining military capabilities. a process that seems to be ongoing and we don't see any foreseeable real reversal in that. second, a withdraw from europe, significant u.s. combat capability over the last several years. third is rising instantability. we talked about this, most notably crisis in syria underscores threats to some of our allies and most notably turkey. a risk looking paleolithic, there is the growing risk from changes going on in russia. this is a country that features a disturbing mix of internal conflict, rising zdeno phobia coupled with increasing foreign policy backed by growing military capabilities. we mentioned today steadfast jazz, nato exercise of 6,000, major undertaking, major collective exercise. compare that to 2013 which took place in october. that involved 70,000 troops, strategic bombers, maritime landings, missiles. that is larger than a steadfast jazz. i'm not saying it signals full-to-back confrontation, but it does give credence to those who are concerned or ask whether or not nato is giving adequate credential to those contingencies on its eastern front
of congress should recognize we often don't know what these new advancement will develop into. while we must ensure proper safeguards, it's my hope through hearings like this we can help maintain an environment that continues to promote new financial technologies and innovative growth. thank you again to my colleagues. i look forward to hearing all the testimony from my witnesses. thank you. >> senator. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to co-chair this gathering. i see by the full room the level of interest and enthusiasm in this topic. certainly this is a new technological strategy that has a tremendous number of implications. the wave of innovation reaching in the world of currency and money transmission. we've all heard about exciting developments such as mobile developments and companies, classic banking system payments. this generation of technology which we're talking about today takes things to a whole new level. with the creation of virtual currencies like bitcoin and more recently ripple, we're actually seeing payments trans acted entirely with trust. open source code and public transa
Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36